tv [untitled] March 17, 2014 10:00am-10:31am PDT
unit being approximately 1,000 square feet. the 01 one bedroom unit being approximately 1400 square feet. 1101 is the unit where the owners have lived for the past ten years. the merger will retain the three bedrooms in a more family friendly and reasonably sized home. in conclusion, this merger will allow the owners to achieve their goal of comfortably remaining in their home as they age in place. they are looking forward to remaining active in their community as they enjoy their retirement in san francisco. with that, i'll turn you over to the homeowners. i'm trudy [speaker not understood]. i want to thank greg. he's not only our architect, but also my brother. [laughter] and my husband jim is a recently retired engineer. i am a potter and glass artist and part of a cooperative of 50
artists that all work together in a warehouse south of market street and i hope to never retire. however, retirement was really something we thought a lot about when we purchased this condo 10 years ago and have been living there ever since because we he really are fans of the idea of the aging in place. so, we looked for a building that has no steps, has close access to public transportation, and the sorts of things that will make it a comfortable place to live on into our older years. and the building has -- is a place where many people stay for quite a long time. we purchased the one building -- one bedroom condo next to ours from our neighbor don who had lived there for 52 years and then last year in his late 80s developed a few health problems and decided it was time to move on to an assisted living facility and offered to sell us his unit. we were all very aware of the fact that two other identical units on two other floors had
already been merged in this fashion and one of those resulting three bedroom units has a family with a couple of kids and the mom tells me it's a great place for their family home. we, of course, are at a very different place in our life, but we think it would allow us to enjoy our retirement more. we'd be able to have friends and family members come and visit san francisco and stay with us and maybe even more importantly as we grow older, should we have illness situations, it would give us enough space to have a family member or caregiver perhaps live with us for awhile if that was needed. so, in conclusion i would just like to say we think that having this a bit bigger 3 bedroom unit would allow us to not only enjoy our retirement more, but hopefully stay in our home much longer. thank you very much. >> thank you. is there any public comment? seeing none, commissioners,
[speaker not understood] had to leave early but did want to get a sense whether the commission wants to continue to see these type of cases that are probably demonstrably not affordable. they are coming in front of us because of the executive directive that's in the spirit of how you're reading into the executive direct i have want to get a sense of if he we want to continue to see them. commissioner antonini. ~ districtive >> well, to answer that question, in this casey would probably have said no, it should have been approved administratively because it was demonstrably unaffordable, but i'm hearing that because the line is higher now, one of the units falls below. so, that's kind of a technicality and it's a little bit after the fact. but it's fine that we hear this one bit it seems to me if they're demonstrably unaffordable at the time that the case is brought -- put on the calendar, first brought, it was first begun in august. then, you know, if the rules happened to change in between,
then it still should be unaffordable. i think it's within $5,000 or something. >> i'm not sure about that part of it, but this case is -- it has been administratively approved. it would have been done three months ago and it would have one below the or above the 1.34 2 threshold. the number only changed last week as this was going to hearing ~. >> and also there's been a change with the new legislation that does not allow things to be approved administratively. i guess only under certain circumstances -- >> only if the building has two or less units. >> two or less units, yes. >> it wasn't accounting for these larger condominiums. >> yeah, my feeling is certainly in this case it would probably -- we probably shouldn't hear it. it's here now and we can opine on it. in the future, i would think if they're not affordable, probably kind of defeats the
purpose of not allowing mergers because i think this meets all the criteria but one. they say it doesn't meet 2, but i mean the elimination of a rent stabilized unit is sort of like saying if pigs could fly, pork would be more expensive. you know, it's never been a rental. 52 years the guy has been in there. the building was built as condos. almost they're all condos. maybe somewhere in the building someone is rentsing a unit here or there. many of these buildings have restrictions on the number of units that could be rented to keep their condominium status. so, i don't think that's even a factor. but i would be strongly in support of not taking d-r and approving this merger because it seems to make a lot of sense and it creates a unit that will be more family friendly with three bedrooms and two baths and i think it meets all the other criteria, even the new
ones in terms of the situation where it brings it more in conformity with the zoning for the area, which is rm-2, and everything else, owner occupied, nobody displaced. so, that's my feeling on it. >> thank you. commissioner borden. >> i would agree and not take -- i move to not take d-r and approve the project. >> second. >> but the other thing i was going to say, i do think there is a problem when demonstrably affordable is 1.5. i mean it's a weird number, especially when you're talking about a thousand square foot one bedroom. we're not talking about a house. i mean, you know, i feel like that number -- maybe the director ought to look at how many -- it doesn't sound like it's the square footage [speaker not understood]. to me to say that a one bedroom at 1.5 million is demonstratively affordable, obviously 1.5 million is demonstrably affordable anywhere in the world is an obscene thing to say.
but to the extent of what we're trying to capture, you would think it would be more than one bedroom that you'd be talking about because that's the kind of housing we're generally talking about as much as bedroom. that's what part of the districtive is related to that. i think when we're looking at that number, i don't know if that's something that the task force is looking into can kind of sort through. but it is about bedrooms, one bedroom at 1.5 million is not affordable. >> demonstrably not affordable is in the planning code. and it is defined as 80% of the combined land structure of family home. it doesn't break it out by size he. that may be something else to look at within the code. >> it's hard because on one hand i understand the rationale. at the same time it's still out of whack. there is a judgment that has to be made and i'm not sure where we want to put that line, but
in this particular case, especially in this building that was built as a condo building, it clearly was a building not designed to be affordable, it doesn't seem like it's worth the time we're spending. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, thank you for reminding us about the calculation what it's based on because it seems weird to me that we're even using the term single-family house value when most -- we don't have any mergers that relate to single-family houses. at least, i don't remember -- >> [speaker not understood]. >> oh, okay, yeah. but in any case, so, it seems like somebody ought to take a look at it and like maybe try to have a different -- related to i think what commissioner borden is saying the type of housing unit itself rather than to use a single-family house
which is a lot more -- would have a lot more bedrooms usually than one, at least two, i would imagine. ~ in most cases. just a suggestion to staff to maybe take it back and take a look at it at some point. just one last question from me. when you indicate on the diagram that originally combined units, which is 12 through 18, originally combined -- maybe i missed it in the text -- means that those with combined immediately when the building was put into service -- >> yes, they were all like converted from the plan to what they sold as ~. really, that was probably a bad description on our part. those upper floors were originally designed with just two units, whereas the lower floors had three units sold. they were never combined. they were originally designed to be the same layout as we're
proposing to combine [speaker not understood] at this point. >> okay, thanks. >> commissioner moore. >> in principle i'm in support of the project. the only thing i'd like to ask the department, it is very funny to say that this brings a project more in conformance with rm-2 zoning. [laughter] >> i sit there and laugh. across from the [speaker not understood] house, historic building and three other victorians on all sides -- on all sides going to the east and going south and going to the east and going to the north and going to the west to the south and the west to the north are all multi-story buildings, some of them even taller than the building they're talking about. so, this zoning reference doesn't quite fly. [speaker not understood]. so, i think we need to be a little bit more discerning when we say that, the argument about the finances that i tend to agree with commissioner borden. but that's neither here for us
to decide because it's [speaker not understood] as it is [speaker not understood]. and i do think that the descriptions and this is a condominium and since i do have to support of their hoa which is basically they wouldn't have that, we couldn't do anything anyway. we are just giving a nod to something which is what is it is. >> thank you. commissioner hillis. >> i feel like i'm aging in place here. [laughter] >> i'm doing two shows nightly. [speaker not understood]. [laughter] >> i just wanted to say the value always confuses me. [speaker not understood] it's a condo. i think the fact it's a condo, and we had one like this before is why i want to see it, not because of the value. [speaker not understood]. >> thank you.
>> so, was there a consensus or no consensus? >> i heard there was some consensus not to hear these type of units particularly the unaffordable units, but to relook at the definition of demonstrably and affordable. commissioner moore. >> it is a different situation when we're talking about condos and when we're talking about multi-families and their units which are being merged in those buildings. so, i would distinguish that we should be viewing those -- >> a distinction of condo units. >> we owe it to the public. we're kind of slipping in the background and we're trying to hold the value and very carefully looking at mergers, half of them someplace else. >> okay, thank you. commissioner antonini. >> not to belabor this, but it's been long enough already. [laughter] >> this doesn't come up -- last week we had one, whenever
you're bringing it back for further input from the commission, we have to figure out whether a studio is, in fact, a bedroom. i mean, a studio is a living room, but it's implied it's a bedroom, because you sleep in it, but i'm not sure a studio is really a one bedroom. and, so, when you count the number of bedrooms, we come out equal in this one and we did last week, too, although staff didn't feel we did because one of them was a studio. we just have to get a definition what is considered a bedroom whether a studio is in fact a bedroom. >> thank you. >> commissioners, there is a motion and a second to not take d-r and approve the merger. on that motion, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis 1830s aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner fong? >> aye. >> and commission president wu? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0 and places you on general public comment. i have no speaker cards. >> is there any general public comment?
lives. please stand now as we singalong with the first song maybe. this is a wonderful occasion because we not only will sing the national anthem but the negro national anthem after that. this is the two-time grammy award winning boys choir academy specific boys choir academy we welcome them for the 3 sons under the director kevin fox >> oh, can you can you see by the dawns early light.
savvy of the lady who is the president of naacp. ass allows decided there could be no better way to celebrate black history month than to make history that's why we're here today and alice we owe you a big debt of grutd. thank you for being our official host today (clapping) you also doubt there are many people who can't be called a celebrity or dignitary. i'm going to do this because our all special just read a few names of the special, special (laughter) we'll start with the mayor of sdpo san francisco mayor ed lee
and jeff is here and coworker i didn't and mark farrell and london breeding and jp morgan moscone and convincing and kevin shelly and regularly allergy. cohesive craig shur and fire chief joan as well as all of you very special people. we welcome you carmen count iv u chiu is on my list and thank you for not allowing me to use your titles today. unfortunately, i have to inform you that bar andrew young was unable to leave his people home in atlanta, georgia because of the snowstorm it was two
threatening for him to travel so ambassador young who was a constant champion of dr. martin luther king was emotional about missing this occasion. he hoped for an opportunity to talk about the sfakz of the movement and it's connection to the process shown p.i. by this sermon, however, mr. kings personal attorney one of his political advisory and for historical reasons he was a draft speech writer and one who helped him write the iconic i have a dream speech. he's a professor at the every time of the san francisco and a schooler at the martin luther
king jr. at the university. doctor jones is here to puck pick up the mandala we welcome you to the podium (clapping.) >> thank you so very much. aefld i think the organizesers of this program are testing my skills i'm also a professor of the university of the san francisco on the art of speech writing so i find i've been limited to a short period of time. let me just say this (laughter) it is fitting in the naming of the bridge considers in the 50th anniversary year of the 1964
christopher's movement and for the crusade for the ask the especially from the north and across the nation to journey to mississippi to register a vote. that happened 50 years ago and across the bridge galvanizing and mobile listed the consciousness of a nation leading to the civil rights voting act of 1965. there is a line that connects the krifrts voting in 1965 the voting rights act the crossing of edmond bridge and the crusade to register unregistered blacks
in mississippi. there's a line that connected k connects that movement here today. so willie my friends it's not about the naming of the bridge but the historical context within this naming occurs. several years ago dr. king said i need you to go back to california because jessie wants to meet with me i don't know what it is boo about so it met with jessie. you know, first of all, i thought that was a strange name and i learned i did my homework he's a powerful dude. we talked about but during the course of this meeting he talked about this young man he thought